masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:DeldiRe
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the User blog:Garhdo/Multiplayer characters. page. Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Teugene (Talk) 09:23, 25 May 2012 Editing Another User's User Space Please do not make changes to pages that are in another user's user space. This goes against wiki policy, and can result in a ban. You should not edit pages that are under User:(another user's screen name), e.g. User:Trandra/Sandbox/Engineer (multiplayer). Let me know if you have any questions. Trandra 14:00, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :Sorry for the dit i didn't saw it when i red the policy. I just wanted to help in your project that i support. :Kind regards, :DeldiRe ::If you'd like to support that project, please check out this forum thread--Forum:MP Class pages and comment or vote. Trandra 00:18, June 1, 2012 (UTC) leaving I would like to thank you for your mature opinions and for the support you expressed me recently. I’m sorry I haven’t had a chance to get to know you, and will not, either, or at least not on this wiki, as I am leaving for good. Farewell. --Ygrain (talk) 11:45, January 21, 2013 (UTC) It as really a sad decision but i can clearly understand your frustration and your uncomprehension, i feel the same way. I hope that you are not the first of a larger group to leave this wiki. Nevertheless you are still welcome if you want to come back :)--DeldiRe 14:55, January 22, 2013 (UTC) Cleanup tactics page I'm currently trying to cleanup the tactics page of ennemies (I begin with ME3) because there is too much information and most of them ar irrelevant. I proceed with those criteria : *I delete repetition *I try to merge similar information *I delete general info (such as Overload is good against shield and Warp againt armor), these informations belong to the power pages. *I delete information who are too specific (like a krogan can have x% against such type with this shtogun and this power in this difficulty) *I try to simplify the infos *I transform specific info into general remarks (ex: Javelin pass trough the shiel of the guardian -> piercing dammage can pass trought the shield of the guardian) My methodology is, of course, open to discussion. --DeldiRe 15:25, February 19, 2013 (UTC) :I am going to say this bluntly because there is no nice way to say this. I can honestly say that is the worst cleanup job I have seen. You removed so much valid content that I cannot even believe you would call that cleanup. I had to repeatedly question whether or not it was vandalism. You do need more experience and more familiarity with how tactics sections work before you just start slashing content. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:54, February 19, 2013 (UTC) :I can hear your comment but how can you honneslty thinking that "Overload on a Nemesis is effective" is a relevant information for this page. The tactics page are overwhelmed with useless info who hide the information really interessant to understand the capacity of ennemies. Nevertheless, as I said my vision is submitted to debate, if you feel that i deleted too much, you are free to undo (I only made cleanup for cerberus force in ME3). But how dare can you accuse me of vandalism ? I prefer to be a vandal for one page than be a vandal for the whole wiki as you are with your attitude (and I do not speak of your reaction to my "cleanups" --DeldiRe 23:22, February 19, 2013 (UTC) :I am sorry that you took offense, but there really was no other way to describe it and how bad it really was and how it looked. I felt that you did need that perspective on just how bad it looked. You removed so much content, that it looked exactly what a vandal would do, deleting large swaths of content under a guise or nothing. You also removed so much valid content, specially character and class specific stuff, that is again something that a vandal would do because they did not like it. It was a very serious issue and one that I can honestly say that I have not seen before, nor hope to see again. :Will I admit they do need cleanup? Yes they do. Is there redundant content? Probably. But removing large swaths of content based on a badly defined set of guidelines and with no discussion I might add is not the way to do it. When implementing large scale cleaup projects, it is best to at least discuss it first with a senior editor or admin to ensure that the backfire is not as serious. Lancer1289 (talk) 01:33, February 20, 2013 (UTC) I will then launch a forum to create new guidelines for tactics pages to clean and reorganize this real flow of informations. And stop telling me that i acted as a vandal, I explained my vision which is not "i do not like it, i remove it". I just tried to reorganize and remove the informations who did not belong to the page (overload good for stripping shields belong to overload page). But I have others ideas in order to improve those pages and i will submit them to the community. --DeldiRe 09:23, February 22, 2013 (UTC) Please Please stop making edits to character articles. What you are doing does not fit with how articles are to be formatted. If a character only appears in one game, then do not add a header for that game. Only a spoiler tag is necessary. We do not need unnecessary headers, especially when they end up forcing a Table of Contents. ONly if characters appear in multiple games or have need of a tactics section do they required multiple headers. In the future, please do check with someone first before doing something like this because there may be things you are unaware of. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:28, February 22, 2013 (UTC) : Do not begin to unedit what I have done. I just try to make character articles coherent with each others. None of them was layouted in the same way.Ans for the poeple appearing only in one game, i did not add a TOC. Furthemore, those character could still appears in further release --DeldiRe 18:32, February 22, 2013 (UTC) ::And I will be going through all of the edits because there are inconsistencies. You keep adding headers where they are unneeded, you have forced ToC's when they are unneeded, you have added clr tags which add huge amounts of space in articles. Putting huge spaces in articles just makes every article look unprofessional and sloppy. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:35, February 22, 2013 (UTC) ::: Again it is YOUR vision that you put forward. I just made the article more consisten with each other. How dare can you just undo like that. Stop doing that and open YOUR vision to debate with others. I'm tired of your attitude. --DeldiRe 18:40, February 22, 2013 (UTC) :::: Moreover you changed everything i have done even things that are not against your **** vision. Like new chapter style to fit with other articles... --DeldiRe 18:41, February 22, 2013 (UTC) :::::Really? I have found at least 10 articles where you have forced a TOC for two or less sections. I have found at least 15 articles where you have added a header when something/someone only appears in one game/comic/book and that is unnecessary. I have found a number of clr tags when they are not necessary. Clr tags are to be added on an as needed basis. This is your vision you are forcing, not a standard one. You keep doing this and you keep proving that you do not understand how things work. You keep doing large scale things without checking with someone first, and I am getting sick of it. You know the procedure for making large scale changes, and you do not follow it. Twice now. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:46, February 22, 2013 (UTC) Lets let cool heads prevail here, guys. I suggest that you both step back and cool down a bit before things escalate.--Legionwrex (talk) 18:44, February 22, 2013 (UTC) :When people cannot at least check with someone first before making large scale changes, then that is a problem and I cannot let it go. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:46, February 22, 2013 (UTC) I m tired of arguing with you on every point, it is hopeless, you always stick to your vision. I think that you won, i won't make further edit until you leave, once and for all, this wiki. I hope that more capable poeple will replace you soon enough (and there is plenty of them among the editors such as legionwrex, trandra TE78, ...). And to rephrase you, I'm sick of your insult (vandalism, morron, noob,...) toward me and other users. And to respond to my edits, I made them only to make every articles formated in the same way to look more professionnal but it seems that for you it is sloppy, such as everything you do not like. Ah and one last thing, when i tried to ask a change in large scale with the right template, you just mocked me because it was a fail attempt just because my template was'nt perfect (because it was one of my first edit). See you. nb: It is the first time that I want to break the language policy, but Im to polite to do so... --DeldiRe 19:37, February 22, 2013 (UTC) @legionwrex : Thank you for your intervention but I already cooled my head more than once. And as we say in Belgium "too much is too much".--DeldiRe 19:42, February 22, 2013 (UTC) :(edit conflict)And you have to keep arguing because you have never understood how things work. Any time that large scale edits are to be made, you are required to check with someone first, not just go off and do what you want. And you did that...twice. The reason for this is to ensure standards and to ensure that the person doing it does it the right way. You have twice just went off and did your own thing and that just is not tolerated. So far, just about every major change has either been talked over with an admin at the very least, or gone into the projects forum. The last two character page cleanups where in the projects forum. You just went off and did what you want with no discussion, no consideration for standards, and absolutely nothing to check you until after you start. If you had come to anyone first, you would have gotten feedback and it would not have backfired. :There is also just something I will not tolerate, someone putting words into my mouth. I have never called you a "noob", "moron", or a vandal. I had little choice but to give you a very real perspective about what it looked like. You went off and did want you want without consulting anyone about what the standards were. You just did what you wanted, with what you thought was right, and removed what you thought was irrelevant. You again did this without any consultation and without talking to anyone. This cannot be tolerated and will not be tolerated. Your reaction to this was entirely overblown and if you had been much more reasonable, things would have worked out, but again, it was clear that you never read any site policies and just did want you wanted. Large edits are required to be checked with first because of the amount of articles they will impact. This has worked quite successfully in the past, and you did not even bother to even try. Therefore, the fault for this is entirely on your own. No one I know would start making large changes and then say, "oh if you want to discuss it, fine, but I'm going to keep doing what I think is right". You talk first, then work, not the other way around. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:53, February 22, 2013 (UTC) :: Hilarious you just said 4 times the same things. Keep talking you made my day. And by the way. Check with an admins ? There is none... Only 3 for a huge wiki (and one of them is a complete the word you want to hear --DeldiRe 19:59, February 22, 2013 (UTC) Oh and by the way : "Administrators should not use their administrator powers to settle editing disputes; for example, to lock a page on a version he or she prefers in an editing dispute that isn't vandalism. Administrator powers should be use to help keep the wiki clear of vandalism, spam, and users who make malicious edits, but not for simple disagreements between users acting in good faith. Ideally an admin shouldn't be considered "in charge". The ideal admin is just someone who is trusted to have a few extra buttons and to use them for the benefit of the Wikia community."--DeldiRe 10:46, February 25, 2013 (UTC) Final Warning Any further violation of site policy will result in a ban. Your comments are completely uncalled for and your repeated insulting attitude is not helping anything. Your persistent harassment is also a violation of site policy. Break any site policy again, and you will face a ban for your behavior. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:54, February 23, 2013 (UTC) :"Your comments are completely uncalled for and your repeated insulting attitude is not helping anything." Taking into account how you've been in some recent posts, wouldn't this mean you'de have to ban yourself via the same context? Avg Man (talk) 02:27, February 24, 2013 (UTC) ::Not that it annoy me because I won't edit anymore. But why I m blocked? I did'nt comment or edit anything since the "final warning". --DeldiRe 13:19, February 24, 2013 (UTC) That is true, actually. Tali's no.1 fan (talk) 13:34, February 24, 2013 (UTC) :You are blocked because Commdor and I were both of the opinion that your blatant violations of site policy (and there is literally no way you can spin calling another editor a complete moron as anything but a willful violation of site policy) warranted an immediate ban. Don't blame Lancer. The decision to impose the ban was made by Commdor and I. The really funny thing is, it was also the two of us who decided on the ban for TellNo1, which DeldiRe was referring to while insulting Lancer. :To be perfectly clear, insulting other editors is intolerable, and in this case, it was done openly and blatantly, in direct defiance of site policy. DeldiRe is more than welcome to resume editing after the ban expires, provided there are no further repeat occurrences of this boorish behavior. SpartHawg948 (talk) 11:43, February 25, 2013 (UTC) I won't oppose the temporary ban because i know that I deserved it and I never said and I never will say otherwise. Nevertheless, I hope that you will soon enough understand that there is a serious issue when we compare the admin policy and the behaviour of some admin (and I won't give a name or I will be accused of a vendetta). I explain myself, it is clearly stated that an admin may not impose his will "to settle editing dispute wich was clearly the case in most of my "debate" with Lancer. And it is often the case when Lancer "debate" with others editors. You can't deny that. Moreover, it is clearly stated that the contribution of an editor acting in good faith (what I always did on this wiki, I just want to improve a fabulous tool that I use very, maybe too, often) can't be deleted by admin without a proper debate. And last but not least, I hope that you will be smart to enough to not judge my point in regard of what I said to Lancer. I know that it was not the better option to resolve the problem but, actually, it was the only way to have some attention from the administration. kr, --DeldiRe 11:58, February 25, 2013 (UTC) Oh, and btw, I still wait a response of Lancer on the debate that i launch on the "hazard" talk page. I think this is an interessant topic to talk about (can we use "canon" when we speak about gameplay?) --DeldiRe 12:00, February 25, 2013 (UTC) I'm impressed. You've done a really good job on editing the ME:infiltrator pages. Sorry that I've been no help at all...--TW6464 (talk) 13:32, March 26, 2013 (UTC) I will keep working on this to improve content. You are welcome to add some comment or to correct spelling/grammar/layout. And thank you for your support. I wanted to start that work a bit earlier but i was delayed by my "little" argumentation with Lancer. Nevertheless, work is going on. --DeldiRe 13:51, March 26, 2013 (UTC) Okay, I'll try to when I can.--TW6464 (talk) 13:58, March 26, 2013 (UTC) THANKS Thanks for the resent edits at the ME 3 infiltrator, it only a few that have played the game(who edits on this wiki), and its valueble information :)--Perkins98 (talk) 17:31, March 26, 2013 (UTC) Ty for support, I'm still working on it--DeldiRe 19:05, March 26, 2013 (UTC) MEI Logo I uploaded a logo you can put at the top of your sandbox page to match the other game pages: File:Mass Effect Infiltrator logo.png. Trandra (talk) 21:14, March 28, 2013 (UTC)